Wikipedia talk:Request an account/Procedures

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Callanecc in topic Re-promotion

Pre-implementation resolutions

edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sockpuppetry blocks

edit

"Blocks on other Wikimedia projects may be taken into account if they are for matters such as outing or sockpuppetry."

  1. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  2. But recommend should rather than may. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 14:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  3. Concur Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  4. FunPika 10:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

edit

Quorum for admin nominations

edit

"Should we have a quorum?? For example, x% of current tool users must support otherwise the nomination fails."

If voting yes please include what you think the quorum should be.
Leave it up to tool admins to discuss if there are enough votes in close calls.
  1. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  2. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  3. Joshua Issac (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  4. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 15:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  5. Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  6. FunPika 10:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

edit

WP:Avoid instruction creep. 'nuf said. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 15:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Should we set a length of nomination

edit
  1. 7-14 days, we shouldn't be dragging it out for longer than 7 days except if there aren't enough votes to decide. If there still aren't enough votes after 14 days then there isn't a consensus to promote. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  2. Per Callanecc. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  3. 7-10 days with promotion or no consensus by day 14. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 15:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  4. 7–14 days per Callanecc and Doctree. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  5. FunPika 10:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

edit

Re-promotion

edit
Former tool admins may be re-promoted if they have not been suspended from the tool for more than x time. Please state how long you think this should be.

Discussion

edit

I'm assuming this is "re-promoted on the fly" ? With or without much discussion. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah so a former tool admin asks you to unsuspend and re-promote them because they were suspended for inactivity. How much inactivity is ok before it needs to be discussed on a mailing list (including how much time they should spend as a non-admin user? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Inactivity or voluntary demotion is often due to real life situations like an unusually rugged semester at school, a major project for those working or a health issue for seniors. Most of those last longer than three months. I agree that after six more months of inactivity, the returning tool admin should take time to get up-to-date before taking any action reserved for tool admins. I would agree to a year of inactivity without another poll of the whole group. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 16:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Doctree's comment above, and would support re-promotion for former admins who have been inactive for no longer than a year, provided that they have shown that they are up-to-date on all relevant changes to procedure that have happened in their absence. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Certainly no longer than a year, I would suggest six months, or even three. --Sue Rangell 18:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Other discussion

edit

Some niggles:

  • For newcomers or someone just stumbling onto the page, edit the lead to make it more clear that the page is about ACC tool administrators, their selection, promotion and demotion, and duties.
  • Re-order the sections to provide, in my opinion, a more logical progression. Rather than start with banning, start with Selection, promotion and demotion (Renamed from Promotion and demotion. Separate headings for Selection and promotion and Demotion and re-promotion are another possibility.). Then list the responsibilities and activities of tool admins. My suggested order is:
  1. Selection, promotion and demotion
  2. Approving and suspending tool users
  3. Mailing list and IRC channels
  4. Banning
  5. Force breaking reservations
  6. Editing comments
  7. Resetting old requests
  8. Changes to policy or procedures
  • For consistency with the guide, please refer to Wikipedia administrators as sysops within this page.

The page is good as-is for those somewhat familiar with ACC, especially if s/he followed the mailing list for the last few months. When I read the page, though, I thought about what I would have thought of it as a new ACC user. It was only a few months ago that I became a tool user. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 00:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've added some more general information about tool admins and changed to sysop.
However regarding the section headings, I don't really see a reason to rename "Promotion and demotion" as it still summarises what the section is about (the nomination process is about promoting a new tool admin). I think splitting it is just going to be confusing and will drag it out since we are talking about the same bundle of functions.
I've moved the others around pretty much going by your suggestions. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Force breaking reservations

edit

I think the two hour limit guideline should be mentioned. --Sue Rangell 18:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Sue Rangell: What two hour limit? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, I don't know, actually. A little while back I had one of my reservations broken, and when I asked about it, I was told that there was a two hour limit, or that two hours was sort of a guideline number, or somesuch. Prior to that, I had thought the guideline was something more like 24 hours. Is there no consensus on this? --Sue Rangell 19:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've never heard of a two hour limit, I'd prefer to leave it to admin discretion anyway. Others? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Note on ban appeals

edit

User:Callanecc/sandbox/Procedures#Ban_appeals states that users should appeal bans to the admins mailing list. Just to note it here, interface message 19 would have to be updated for this, since it directs users to appeal bans on the main mailing list. FunPika 22:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Unless anyone has an objection to it going to the admins' list (which is generally where it gets sent during moderation from what I've seen and would expect). There are a couple of site messages where I think it would be helpful to direct people to the admins' list. However in this case directing them to the admins' list so we have sudo CheckUser evidence could be helpful (that is, we collect the evidence then direct the email to admins' list). But I don't mind either way. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply